He’s less worried about "Flame," a new piece of espionage malware that analysts here say has yet to be fully understood. At the moment, it also appears to specifically target Iran.

“Flame is nothing really new. It doesn't bring any new qualities,” he told Ars on Wednesday. “Cyber-espionage has been conducted for years. Duqu, the German [state trojan] does similar things—it can turn on the microphone for voice messages. It's not new. Espionage attacks are occurring worldwide on a daily basis and for purposes of state espionage. In my opinion, Flame might be a little bit overhyped.”

Langner reiterated his ongoing concern that governments and industry are not doing enough to protect themselves against cyber-threats like Stuxnet that could be used to damage real-world infrastructure. And he sees a danger that, the longer Stuxnet’s code remains in the wild, the more likely someone will adapt it for more malicious purposes.

“Simply because somebody hasn’t done it, that doesn’t mean it can’t be done,” he said. “What we try to do is to try to prevent it from being exploited in the first place.”

He lamented the fact that European and American governments, utility companies, and infrastructure operators continue to engage in “complete negligence” in hardening their infrastructure against such attacks. Stuxnet copycat attacks, or an expansion of similar tactics by rogue agents, remain a real threat.

“It does not require the resources of a nation-state to develop cyber weapons,” he wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times on Monday. “I could achieve that by myself with just a handful of freelance experts. Any US power plant, including nuclear, is much easier to cyberattack than the heavily guarded facilities in Iran. An attacker who is not interested in engaging in a long-term campaign with sophisticated disguise (which rogue player would be?) needs to invest only a tiny fraction of effort compared to Stuxnet.”

Last year, Langner suggested that the United States might try to expand on its covert cyber-operations as a way to up the ante.

“So either we’re going to see an updated version 2.0 soon that goes straight for a simultaneous catastrophic destruction of as many centrifuges as possible (which had been, and maybe still is, technically possible) or the problem has to be delegated to the Air Force,” he wrote last year.

Still, Langner seems generally in favor of the willingness of the United States to engage in such tactics; he said that the US government admission of complicity in Stuxnet (leaks which the FBI is now investigating) will surely shore up domestic political support for the president.

“During the first weeks of our analysis, I had a hard time finding sleep, as long as we assumed that [Stuxnet] could have been the Russians,” Langner said Wednesday. “That would have been a very uncomfortable thought, because the capabilities that you see are so advanced. I think when I reached the conclusions that this must have been launched by the United States that added to my comfort—you're the good guys.”

It's far from perfect, but give me a list of countries that have done as much for freedom as the USA has done. Now, give me a list of countries that have done more against freedom than the USA. List #1 will be significantly shorter than list #2.

I'd also point out that if you count the number of countries that any given country has bombed/undertaken 'hostile' action in over the last century, the US is almost certainly 'winning' that one by a fair margin too. While their intentions may (at least some of the time) be for the greater good, by similar standards this would make them the most aggressive/warmongering nation.

The German government is far from perfect and I would never quote them on an example either, they have spied on their citizens for years on their communications, and everyone traveling to Germany can see how parts of the Internet are even censored, including Youtube videos which they consider right wings ideas. Wikipedia even has an article on Germany censorship and I think they are just second place behind China.

It does not matter why they do it, in their case they justify internet censorship based on their fear of right extremist raising in power. Someone else would could say its political, because they if they are afraid of some political movements or groups getting more power then its just like any other Arab dictator trying to censor their opponents.

This is where the US is truly free, in speech, religion and politics, or at least its trying to be. Germany and some other european countries went to so far to actually send people to jail for things like writing a book on holocaust denial. How is this different from Nazis burning books and sending people to jail for their ideas? Its exactly the same. The worlds most dangerous weapon is an idea and they make laws to stop people spreading their ideas or believes regardless of what they are, in this case politics ideas which can trow their government upside down.

My point is very simple. Ralph Langner would always say this is something good, and the US or persons did it based on idealism and to protect us from the evil Iran government because they are the ones that pays his bills. But the true is that they don't view it like that. And other countries don´t see it that way either, China, Russia, etc are far from being US allies and they are watching every move. An attack is an attack. If its was Iran attacking a power plant in the US with a virus we would already see retaliation. Justified? Probably. The means do not matter, even if they are just bits and bytes its already an attack and the US considers this an act of war. So why should not Iran and other countries consider this the same way?

People need to be morally intelligent to differentiate when we the good guys are starting to become less of the good guys and more like the villain in a bad movie.

It reminds a quote from McNamara "How much evil must we do in order to do good?"

In that light, it seems Lost was perfect for the times we lived in. Powerful people doing mysterious things, bodies dropping left and right, forces that might be supernatural or technological or sleight of hand. Moral ambivalence choosing between two despotic sides. People forced into 'evil' to protect 'good', tricked by forces with motives beyond their comprehension and forces that are irresistible. In the end, the evil exists, but it isn't what you thought it was. And everyone is just left hoping in the afterlife as the ultimate answer.

For all the moral considerations about whether the USA was correct to use cyber espionage against Iran, I fail to see why this is even in the same league as the assassinations, detentions + torture, and state sponsored terrorism that Iran is know to engage in. Not just against their own citizens.

And in other news, major US news outlet The New York Times is trying to justify US "foreign politics" (read: cyber and/or military terrorism fueled by taxpayer's money and lives) to its ignorant populace because no one else on Earth would ever believe that they are the "good guys".

It's far from perfect, but give me a list of countries that have done as much for freedom as the USA has done. Now, give me a list of countries that have done more against freedom than the USA. List #1 will be significantly shorter than list #2.

Not quite a country but the Taliban for one. Remember too that when you enforce your idea of freedom on another nation, you in effect are stifling freedom, and showing disrespect for the cultural importance of another nation.

For all the moral considerations about whether the USA was correct to use cyber espionage against Iran, I fail to see why this is even in the same league as the assassinations, detentions + torture, and state sponsored terrorism that Iran is know to engage in. Not just against their own citizens.

How is this even remotely equivalent?

Walt

Seriously Walt? You do know that the US has conducted assassinations (and are still doing), detentions (guantanimo bay), and torture. I think you guys stopped that now right? And never against your own citizens, except, oh yeah, you just passed a law allowing that. Honestly, by that argument, everyone is legitimized in attacking you. Please go home.

For all the moral considerations about whether the USA was correct to use cyber espionage against Iran, I fail to see why this is even in the same league as the assassinations, detentions + torture, and state sponsored terrorism that Iran is know to engage in. Not just against their own citizens.

How is this even remotely equivalent?

Walt

I should probably avoid this line of discussion, but I agree with you in that this is nowhere near as disturbing or problematic as assassinations and detentions + torture. Of course, I'm less concerned about Iran doing those things, as I am not a voting citizen in an Iranian democracy, and can do little about them. I am *very* concerned about the US doing those things, as I *am* a voting citizen in a US democracy. Those things are being done in my name, and that is not okay.

For all the moral considerations about whether the USA was correct to use cyber espionage against Iran, I fail to see why this is even in the same league as the assassinations, detentions + torture, and state sponsored terrorism that Iran is know to engage in. Not just against their own citizens.

How is this even remotely equivalent?

Walt

This may be a language barrier but I'd note (along the lines of 1 man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist):

And in other news, major US news outlet The New York Times is trying to justify US "foreign politics" (read: cyber and/or military terrorism fueled by taxpayer's money and lives) to its ignorant populace because no one else on Earth would ever believe that they are the "good guys".

Fucking clowns.

How dare he say the US is "The Good Guys"! He clearly has not had the benefit of an Ars forum education. If he had, he would unambiguously know the US is AT LEAST AS BAD, IF NOT WORSE than other nations. He desperately needs to get away from the code and to the Ars forums so that he can truly be a better world citizen.

They're the good guys for launching terrorist attacks and making acts of war against other countries? Oh, ok. So is that why they need bigger budgets and new laws passed for the "cyber agencies". Is that how they are "protecting" us against cyberthreats? By building them, and then making them available to others for using against US?

When they talk about cyberthreats, it's always an excuse for them NOT to increase defensive capabilities at home, but to increase the OFFENSIVE ones.

The U.S. is far from perfect and there are no real good or bad guys in geopolitics, but 10I out of 10the times I'd choose to live in the U.S. over Iran. (Before anyone accuses me of this, I've spent a lot of time traveling around the world for both work and pleasure.) If the choice was pull another Iraq or this, I'm happy they chose the route with the least amount of death.

It's far from perfect, but give me a list of countries that have done as much for freedom as the USA has done. Now, give me a list of countries that have done more against freedom than the USA. List #1 will be significantly shorter than list #2.

It's quite an ironic statement considering that this article is about Iran. Iran used to be a democracy, until the US supported the Shah and helped a crazy theological government come into power.

I'd hate to get political in an Ars thread, but the US has done much more to harm the democratic freedom of other nations more than any other nation in the World. Central America, the Middle East, entire regions have had attempts at democracy stifled and destroyed by the Americans in order to get a friendly monarch or tyrant into power who would cooperate with the US economically.

It's far from perfect, but give me a list of countries that have done as much for freedom as the USA has done. Now, give me a list of countries that have done more against freedom than the USA. List #1 will be significantly shorter than list #2.

It's quite an ironic statement considering that this article is about Iran. Iran used to be a democracy, until the US supported the Shah and helped a crazy theological government come into power.

I'd hate to get political in an Ars thread, but the US has done much more to harm the democratic freedom of other nations more than any other nation in the World. Central America, the Middle East, entire regions have had attempts at democracy stifled and destroyed by the Americans in order to get a friendly monarch or tyrant into power who would cooperate with the US economically.

Even today, the democracy being pushed is a shell. The old guard stays in power behind the curtains while the people get to elect a powerless figurehead ever so often.

lol - because look at what happened to Bradley and Assange. i'd say the US is the good guys too.

Bradley broke the law and is a traitor. He is a US soldier who took an oath and violated it, thus he is getting the justice he agreed to when he joined the military. Assange is just an egomaniac who is getting what he always wanted.

Bradley broke the law and is a traitor. He is a US soldier who took an oath and violated it, thus he is getting the justice he agreed to when he joined the military. Assange is just an egomaniac who is getting what he always wanted.

A true traitor lets his country hide critical information from its public and get away with torture and murder, and says nothing. Such acts don't just diminish its victims, it diminishes the perpetrator and their culture as well.

Any US power plant, including nuclear, is much easier to cyberattack than the heavily guarded facilities in Iran

How so? Are they all connected to the public Internet, or what?

At least some of the time they are, as SCADA systems have a reporting feature that allows for remote monitoring. I'm pretty sure the water utility in my current town has it set up this way from a tour of the facility I received a couple years ago. It's pretty poorly thought out, really. Such utilities should really be shut off from the grid completely...

It's actually pretty easy to separate good actions from bad actions here. In regards to computers, defense and offense are pretty well separated. You want to be a good guy? Find bugs and fix them, and ensure that best practices are used in all important facilities.

Dragonscript wrote:

Bradley broke the law and is a traitor. He is a US soldier who took an oath and violated it, thus he is getting the justice he agreed to when he joined the military. Assange is just an egomaniac who is getting what he always wanted.

The German government is far from perfect ..., and everyone traveling to Germany can see how parts of the Internet are even censored, including Youtube videos which they consider right wings ideas...

It does not matter why they do it, in their case they justify internet censorship based on their fear of right extremist raising in power. ...

...Germany and some other european countries went to so far to actually send people to jail for things like writing a book on holocaust denial. How is this different from Nazis burning books and sending people to jail for their ideas? Its exactly the same. The worlds most dangerous weapon is an idea and they make laws to stop people spreading their ideas or believes regardless of what they are, in this case politics ideas which can trow their government upside down...

I'm not necessarily defending Germany for their censorship, but you also need to recognize they have a very unique place in history regarding the Nazi movement. The Japanese are similar in their response to WWII. Both countries have experienced a *significant* cultural shift in thinking following that war, and it is a very sensitive subject today. Some ideas are just too dangerous to allow to be free. While I, personally, wouldn't deny someone the right to deny the Holocaust, I would speak vehemently against it, and I understand why the citizens of the country responsible for it would ban such talk outright: some people are too keen in overexerting said rights. Simply stated, they don't know when to stop (e.g., Birthers, Fred Phelps et al).

At any rate, I do understand your point, but I also think you're being one-sided (as I am, too, I guess) in your analysis. As a general rule, censorship is bad, but in certain situations, I believe it serves the greater good if applied scarcely and precisely. In the Germans' case, it's to protect against 1) an atrocity from being minimized and 2) allowing themselves to make the same mistake again.